Apostolic Succession; A Biblical Doctrine?

T he doctrine of apostolic succession is the belief that the 12 apostles passed on their authority to successors, who then passed that apostolic authority on to their successors, continuing on throughout the centuries, even to today. Whilst this might be a fascinating and intriguing concept, is it truly biblical?

The great thing about the New Testament is that it clearly establishes the major doctrines of the Church. One may find vital doctrines such as the atonement, resurrection and justification by faith alone, clearly outlined with many scriptural references (one may wish to check out this page). One is left in no doubt on the pivotal doctrines of the Church, neither is one left in any doubt regarding the specific content of the Gospel message (Acts 16: 30-31; Acts 26:1-23; Romans 4: 24-25; Romans 10: 9-10; 1 Corinthians 2: 1-2; 1 Cor. 15:1-4). In the face of such clarity, it might seem amazing how so many have managed to successfully teach extraneous, non-biblical messages but this they have certainly done.

One has to say that 'apostolic succession' is conspicuous by it's absence within the New Testament. The basic idea is that Peter the Apostle was the first pope, or chief leader (based on Matthew 16:18), and that this somewhat grandiose conception of 'chief church leader' should then be passed on through the entirely biblical principle of the 'laying on of hands,' and this certainly does seem to be a New Testament principle of conferring authority. Roman Catholicism believes that Peter later became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishops that followed him were accepted by the early church as overall leaders. However, there are huge problems with this belief. Here are some of them:

1. Apart from the principle of governing elders, the New Testament is pretty much silent on any required church governing schema, or office. For sure, a range of possible church offices are listed in 1 Cor. 12:28 and Eph. 4:11 and one might expect to find some Christians having the necessary gifts to fulfill certain such offices (but not all), possibly depending on the size and scope of the area of responsibility, but the only required office appears to be that of Elder. See Titus 1:5. Also, one might note that neither 1 Cor. 12:28 nor Eph. 4:11 suggest any system or principle of 'apostolic succession' - but wouldn't these have been the ideal places to mention it?? After all, both Eph. 4:11 and 1 Cor. 12:28 do refer to the office of 'apostle,' however, that does not imply, of course, that that particular office would be continually repeated throughout the church age. 'Bishops' are pretty much essential to the concept of apostolic succession, but even Bishop Lightfoot, one of the greatest New Testament scholars of all time, freely admitted that 'bishop' (the office which he himself eventually inherited within Anglicanism), was not truly a New Testament office. The word is based on 'overseer,' but biblically, it appears that it was certain of the elders who were to be overseers, but with no indications of a separate 'overseer' office. The fact that the office of 'bishop' has no New Testament authority or precedent already seriously weakens the 'apostolic succession' argument.

2. Peter might well have been, in a somewhat loose sense, overall apostolic leader in the New Testament, but if he was, it was a very, very loose sense. For example, on one occasion, Paul the Apostle quite strongly challenges and disagrees with him in public (Galatians 2:11-14). Peter's New Testament epistles are not, perhaps, major epistles, as the Pauline ones are, indeed, they are somewhat short and not high on doctrinal content. Later, he appears to disappear altogether from any New Testament consideration with scarcely a mention anywhere. Peter may well have been the overall leader for taking the gospel to the Jews (as Paul was with respect to the Gentiles), yet the epistle of James (James almost certainly being the Senior Elder at Jerusalem), does not even mention him once! Moreover, there is no evidence that Peter ever became 'bishop' of Rome as Roman Catholicism - even now - continues to (erroneously, in my opinion) teach.
Surely all of this would be utterly inconceivable if Peter had understood Jesus' comment to him in Matthew 16:18 to mean that he should adopt a grandiose and pope-like style of leadership! If he was a leader at all (which seems quite debatable), it was possibly only with regard to the work among the Jewish people.

3. In the New Testament, no 'bishop' (overseer) had jurisdiction over the bishops or presbyters of other churches (carefully check out Ignatius of Antioch, in his Letter to Polycarp); rather, that function was reserved for the apostles, which was obviously a foundational office of the Church (Eph. 2:20; 4:11; 1 Cor. 12:28; 2 Cor. 11:28). But today the office of Apostle is obviously closed.

4. The Roman Catholic Church itself has not maintained it's own concept of apostolic succession through the laying on of hands upon holy men. In fact, 'Simony' (that is, the buying of the office of 'pope' or 'bishop' for money, or favours) was an absolute disgrace when the Church of Rome was at it's peak, which it no longer is. Unless I am misunderstanding something here, appointing a corrupt bishop or pope just once would destroy the whole structure and principle of 'apostolic succession' for all time. Frankly, I think that most studied RCs know this which could be why they tend to play down the teaching on 'apostolic succession.'

Read the passage again.

Peter clearly says that he had been with them the whole time.

“Must become a witness with us” means that he will be called to do what Jesus sent the Apostles to do. He will be “with us.”

Did you read what I wrote. I said both those things.

As for Paul.... He is the first example of Apostolic Succession. He was called after the life, passion and ascension of Jesus. He was given the revelation that the others had been given and most importantly, he and his message were vetted and approved by the others, especially Peter.

That is exactly what Apostolic Succession is all about.

Ha ha ha. Apostolic succession doesn't involve receiving a revelation nor does it involve conferring apostleship on anyone. No, Paul was directly called by Jesus. He didn't go confer with any of the other apostles. He went directly into Arabia for three years and then spent a couple weeks in Jerusalem getting to know Peter, of the rest, meeting only James. Fourteen years later he went back again. They met with him and acknowledged his position. They conferred nothing upon him. And you've got your "most importantly" mixed up. Those "pillars in the community" who were "highly esteemed" Paul said "made no difference" to him--they added nothing to his message but acknowledged his position as an apostle. And it was Peter he had to publicly spank for being a hypocrite when he gave in to those who were agitating for Gentile believers to Judaize.

The main point here is that what Peter was outlining as requirements for choosing a successor to Judas as an apostle were not at all required by Jesus for choosing what history has since demonstrated as being his most powerful, world-changing apostle.

“What in your opinion is the Gospel? Do you even know what that means?”

Cronos, I’ve seen you post this type of question before...I’m not sure you even know what that means! Can any human alive really know what that means?

John said that all the things that Christ ever said or did couldn’t even be contained in all the books ever written...thus was the nature of God’s ...”good news”!

Could your defence of your ‘faith’ ever lead you to give up your pseudonym, for example if it meant some poor soul could be saved by your example of Christ? The gospel of Christ often demands such brazen openess, does it not?

“i don't need to ask YOU that because you share your faith and don't try to define your religion by deriding others”

Well I do agree it's a bad policy to deride others’ faith, for what ever doctrinal differences folks may have, there is a God that judges between men and he knows everyone’s heart; he longs to see the image of his Son in all of us!

I also understand the role in history of the Western and Eastern Churches....how they were the only twin pillars of the faith on Earth for centuries and preserved much knowledge thru the dark ages. The Nicene Creeds and the Athanasius creed pretty much define my beliefs. My belief in what a “holy catholic and apostolic church” is however is a much more expansive version then what a Roman Catholic would except, for it includes all Spirit filled blood washed believers everywhere, no matter what church or faith persuasion they hale from

We have discussed this before and I thoroughly disagree with your contention that Paul was given a different gospel than the one given to Peter and the original disciples.

Yes, Paul was called directly by Jesus, yes, Paul received Jesus’ revelations from Jesus and not from the others, but Paul went to the others to share this gospel and to make sure that what he was preaching was acceptable to them and what they had been taught. Paul says so himself.

1 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

He went and met with the others to receive their approval.
Can’t be much clearer than that.

****NOT by Peter and the 11, is not at ALL what Apostolic Succession is about.****

I never said it was given to him by Peter and the others. And, yes, Paul is the first in the line of Apostolic Succession, for whether YOU want to admit it or not, Paul needed their hand of fellowship for others to accept him.

He didn’t go confer with any of the other apostles.

That is not what Paul says, read Galatians.

They conferred nothing upon him.

They gave him their hand in fellowship and because of that, those who were suspicious of him accepted him. Read Scripture to know the truth.

Those “pillars in the community” who were “highly esteemed” Paul said “made no difference” to him—they added nothing to his message but acknowledged his position as an apostle.

And it was Peter he had to publicly spank for being a hypocrite when he gave in to those who were agitating for Gentile believers to Judaize.

True enough, because, GASP!, Peter was not perfect. The point of that story is that Peter’s revelation was not wrong, Peter was not living up to it. Notice that Paul did not say that what Peter had declared about the Gentiles was wrong.

Geesh, read Scripture already.

Paul had BEEN preaching the gospel of the grace of God (the gospel of the uncircumcision) when he went to Jerusalem to meet with Peter, James, and John. He was preaching the gospel of the uncircumcision. So NO, he did NOT need their approval, as they were preaching the gospel of the circumcision, to the Jews. The only approval he needed was from the risen Christ, who gave him his commission and ministry. Can't be much clearer than Gal. describes it. Whether you choose to believe it or not changes it not one bit. It just clouds and confuses the truth.

The Word says what it says.

They may have made no difference to Paul, but it made a difference to the people to whom Paul was preaching the good news. And, Paul knew that, it is why he went to them to receive their hand in fellowship, IOW, their approval.

And it was Peter he had to publicly spank for being a hypocrite when he gave in to those who were agitating for Gentile believers to Judaize.

True enough, because, GASP!, Peter was not perfect. The point of that story is that Peter’s revelation was not wrong, Peter was not living up to it. Notice that Paul did not say that what Peter had declared about the Gentiles was wrong.

Geesh, read Scripture already.

I am reading it, not reading into it a previously assumed and, what appears to be, a barely examined position, based on all the special pleading going on. No, Paul's initial description of everything having to do with anyone's approval is set out here in his initial salutation to the church at Galatia:

Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man [that is, not the result of being the "the first example" of "apostolic succession"], but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead..."

A few verses later he reiterates this:

I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it [so much for apostolic succession]; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

Then after three year, he spent a couple of weeks with Peter in Jerusalem and saw James at that time "to get acquainted," his words. After that he spent another fourteen years in his ministry before, in response to a revelation, he went back to meet with them again.

That you could read Paul's description of his meetings and the sarcastic descriptions of the people he met with 14 years later in Galatians 2:1-10 and say "They may have made no difference to Paul, but it made a difference to the people to whom Paul was preaching the good news. And, Paul knew that, it is why he went to them to receive their hand in fellowship, IOW, their approval" is mind-boggling. He had already started his churches over the previous fourteen years, going to build where no man had before built--therefore, not depending on the remainder of the Eleven to have sent out good vibrations back across time and space (where communication is no faster than a man can travel) to soften things up for him, as though as-yet-unbelieving Gentiles in Greece would care what some Christian Jews in a distant part of the world would say about Paul.

he went back to meet with them again.

Paul’s own words.

I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Not reading into anything.

Not pleading either.

Just presenting my understanding.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.